B.O.B.C.A.T. vs Beancounter Challenge (players needed)

I actually created my alias a long time before I discovered Axis & Allies  :-)

Yes, I’d be happy to be on a research team. This kind of stuff intrigues me. However, bear in mind that I’m also toughing my way through my first year as a high school teacher, so I may not have as much time to devote to this as I’d like.

@larrymarx:

However, bear in mind that I’m also toughing my way through my first year as a high school teacher, so I may not have as much time to devote to this as I’d like.

That makes two of us (my first year teaching middle and high school as well), but I probably have smaller classes than you.  My biggest has 9, and my smallest has 3.

So…… how are you (BadSpeller and larrymarx, so far), really going to gather useful data?

The beancounters are quick to point out that “in a vacuum”, BOBCAT items are not as cost effective as the others.  I don’t disagree with this.  My point in this discussion is that each and every unit has a distinct advantage or capability that no other unit has, and therefore each unit can be useful, and therefore merits purchase in certain game situations.

I think this is going to be difficult or impossible to quantify, at least that’s what I think right now.  I’ll be blunt.  If I’m playing against someone who can’t see the value in buying a tank, tac bomber, cruiser, or battleship, then I believe they are an inferior player.  I mean, there’s probably a lot of other strategic options they’ll miss, if they can’t see why you’d ever buy a tank, tac, cruiser, or bomber.

OK, I think I answered my own question.  Just tally the win/loss records (separating Axis/Allies to rule out inequities between the sides) of BOBCATTs vs. Beancounters.  If my hypothesis that BOBCAT’s are strategically superior players holds true or does not hold true, then the results (win/loss) should speak for themselves.

So, I will go on record, predicting a statistically significant difference between BOBCATTs and Beancounters success results.  I predict BOBCATTs will win greater than 60% of their games (if each side has equal opportunity at Axis or Allies)

I have a class with 14, a class with 22 and another class with 34 students. I’m not complaining because some teachers at this school have upwards of a hundred students total.

What you propose above is that beancounting is a symptom of inferior thinking and not a cause of poor success at games. So, you haven’t actually argued that strategies based on beancounting are bad strategies, just that the players are bad. Axis and Allies is a game of attrition over the long run, so it could very well be that a strategy based on trying to spend IPCs as efficiently as possible (beancounting) is an effective strategy. All good players should have an understanding of the unique value of bobcatt pieces and should be willing to purchase them if the situation calls for it. If there is a player who realizes this and yet never bases their grand strategies on these units, I think we can call that person a skilled beancounter, don’t you?

Should the hypothesis be about the nature of players who are beancounters or about strategies based on beancounting?

Also, do you have a good understanding of statistical significance? I’m asking because I don’t but I do realize it’s an important factor in validating results. Is winning 60% of games statistically significant? I think it depends on the sample size.

As far as how to collect useful data, I think we have to work out these issues before beginning to think about that.

So refreshing to communicate with another intelligent human being.

Larry, you nearly summed up my thoughts perfectly.  I’m not quoting you only because of the annoying scrolling issue when a post gets long - otherwise I would.

Yes, you are fortunate to have small classes.  14 and 22 are fairly small, I think.  Our school is growing, and I may have 14 or 22 in a class before I know it (could be within a couple years).

As for Axis and Allies, yes, I did find myself making a hypothesis that, in general, “beancounters” as defined by BadSpeller are not understanding some things about A&A that BOBCATTs perhaps are.  Oh my goodness.  This will get confusing if I’m not careful.  You know what, here’s a diagram.  This is only my opinion, based on my experiences and analysis.

In increasing order of skill/success in winning A&A:
The Worst - BOBCATTs who are BOBCATTs because they don’t understand some of the basics of A&A.  Like that in general, subs and destroyers are better purchases than battleships, and infantry is the most useful land unit in general.  These players buy battleships and cruisers because they’re cool, because more expensive must mean better, and to intimidate their opponents.  These players say a stack of infantry is weak, because they all attack at 1.  They don’t understand that when you then buy a few planes to support the infantry stack, they become a fearsome offensive and defensive force.

Intermediate players - (remember - this is a huge generalization)

In the middle, you have Beancounters.  They’ve learned that some units are more efficient than others.  They’ve done the math.  They will show you post after post about how a certain stack of units will defeat another stack of units that costs the same amount of money.  These players are getting lost in the details, but they are vastly superior to the players earlier in the evolutionary cycle (or earlier in the learning curve), who still think that the more expensive units must be better to buy.  Beancounters are starting to learn the game mechanics, like that you need some cheap fodder in your battles, in most cases.  Balanced attacks are more effective than unbalanced, in many situations.

(I’m thinking of similarities in the progression of skill in a chess player)

The advanced players are BOBCATTs.  They’ve come full circle (back to buying everything, at times).  Experienced BOBCATTs are the most experienced and most skilled A&A players.  They understand that every unit has a purpose, and they are not opposed to buying a battleship, a tac bomber, tanks, or cruisers when the situation calls for it.  Each unit does things that no other unit can do - each has an advantage over all other units.

BOBCATTs (like advanced chess players) understand that position is sometimes more important than material, and that the makeup of an army needs to be adapted to the situation.  Advanced players understand the dynamics of the entire game, and are never hesitant to adjust or completely change their strategies when need be.  For example, the battleship’s ability to soak a hit, get repaired for free, and bombard most efficiently (as in hits per ground unit used) make them unique.  You can buy 3 destroyers, but if you get hit, you lose a unit, and they cannot bombard.  It is misleading to say that destroyers are better than battleships, or that battleships are better than destroyers.  It’s like saying a horse is better than a mule, or a mule is better than a horse.  It all depends on what you’re trying to accomplish as to which is better.

So I think this is what has been happening.

Beancounters (intermediate players) encounter beginners (who are BOBCATTs) who are making bad purchases.  Realizing that they are smarter or more experienced than the beginners, they start to spout their knowledge, preaching the evils of buying too many tanks, cruisers, tacs, or battleships.  They are right.  However, they sometimes go overboard, and say that you should NEVER buy BCATs, or very rarely buy them.

Then you have the experienced players scoffing at the intermediate players (because often, they’ve been there, done that) and then you have disagreements.  Disagreements largely caused by differences in experience, ability, and perspective.

Here’s what I think would happen if you had this contest.  Your beancounters will mostly be intermediate players.  They will beat the BOBCATTs who are less than intermediate, and the BOBCATTs who are advanced will defeat the intermediate beancounters, and so your overall results will be misleading.

Statistically significant means you have a big enough difference that the error from small sample size is overcome.  For example, if you have a ±3% sampling error, than if BOBCATTs win more than 53% of the games, then you can conclude that they are better, because they’ve overcome the sampling error.

When I predicted BOBCATTs would win 60%, that was before I realized that some BOBCATTs would be less skilled than intermediate players.  I predict that experienced BOBCAT players (like myself, and BadSpeller) would defeat beancounter players more than 60% of the time (and I think I’m picking a low percentage to be on the safe side).

Thoughts?  Thanks, guys.

there is an accurate way to crunch these numbers. accurate and very boring.

luckily for us we have the play by forum site with 1000’s(i am guessing here) of games. you could go over the games and see what has been purchased by players. after tallying the games results you can determine if the players were bobcatts or beancounters. if you get a match with a bobcatt vs a beancounter you make note of the game version, which powers won, and which player style won.

add up the results and you have your real life answer to this fun question.

the more fun way to find out is by playing. but i am guessing there will not be enough players getting on board and it would take forever to get accurate results. in the mean time i am a proud beancounter and willing to defend the cause.

Good idea, Allweneed.  And good point.  So far, zero people have answered the poll question saying they would play as a beancounter.